^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



Chap, Copyright No. 

Sa 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



HV 5182 
.S9 
Copy 1 



BIBLE WINES: 



Discourse Delivered 



-BEFORE THE- 






—AT— 



West Bewton, Pa„ May 8th, 1883, 

— B Y— 

ZE^ZE^TZEIE^IElSriD J. ^. ST&T ^USTIE^ , ID. ID. 

— + — 0/ 

•; ? Published by request of the Association #^ 

"The Author Acknowledges Indebtedness to NotVs Temperance 
Lectures, Reid's Temperance Cyclopedia, The Temperance 
Bible Commentary, Dr. Kerr's Scriptural and Ecclesi- 
astical Wines, Dr. Crosby's Lecture in the Boston 
Monday Lectureship, the Commentaries of 
Dr. Clarke and Dr. Whedon, The Christian 
Advocate, The Pittsburg Christian 
Advocate, The Presbyterian Ban 
ner and The Watchword. 

Copyright, 1883, by J. A. Swaney, McKeesport, Pa. 

^ 

WEST NEWTON PRESS JOB ROOMS, 

1883. 



.61 



Bible Wines, 



"Prove all Things, Hold Fast that whish is Good' 



Thess. 5:21. 



m 



E are first to prove all things, and then hold fast that which 
is good ; and I propose to apply, this principle to Bible wines. 
A few religious teachers have announced to the world, 
that only, one kind of wine, has ever been in existence. The 
conviction anipng, temperance people, "that the use of fermented 
wine at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is nowhere sanctioned 
in the Scriptures," has been met with the declaration, "This is in 
direct opposition to the highest scholarship of the world." We 
are told .that total abstinence from intoxicants is not to be argued 
from the Bible; that Christ made and drank an intoxicating bever- 
age; that the liquid first and afterward used at the Lord's Supper 
was intoxicating; and that modern scholarship and morality are 
the sources from which we are to draw our reasoning against the 
evil of intemperance. Some of the advocates of partial abstinence 
have tried to cast ridicule on the usual temperance talk by calling it 
"the two-wine theory," for they boldly assert that all the wine of an- 
cient times was fermented and intoxicating. With equal propriety 
they might speak of the mention in Scripture of leavened and un- 
leavened bread as the two-bread theory, and contend that what was 
called unleavened bread was not bread at all r but only the dough 
out of which bread was made. 

The position, among Christian teachers, that leaves the Bible 
out of the temperance question, except as favoring the use of intoxi- 



4 

eating beverages, seems to be an unfortunate one. Christ, for in- 
stance, either understood morality as well as the people of this age, 
or he did not. If he understood it as well, and recommended 
practices at variance with it, then we are involved in the ques- 
tion of his honesty. If he did not understand it as well, and there- 
fore recommended practices at variance with it, then we are in- 
volved in the question oi his ability as a teacher for all ages. In 
the one case he appears to have been dishonest, and in the other in- 
capable. How are we to avoid this aspersion on the name of Christ 
if we teach tl it the morality of this age has out-grown the morali'y 
of Christ? With Christians, Christ's authority is supreme, and if 
he favored the use of intoxicating wine, we can find no better au j 
thority against it than his is for it. On the other hand, if we are 
so far advanced that we can teach Christ better temperance princi- 
ples than he advocated, we can probably go still farther, and im- 
prove all the teachings of the Bible. For my part, as a !irm believer 
in the divine inspiration of the Bible, I accept this book as the 
highest standard of morality which the world ever knew or ever can 
know. 

A mistake of the one-wine theorists has been, that the greater' 
number of references to intoxicating wine proves that to be the 
only wine, while the less number of references to uuintoxicating 
wine proves that to be no wine. But if one kind of wine is spoken 
of one hundred times, and another kind only twenty times, these two' 
facts irresistibly prove the existence of both kinds of wine. 

"The highest scholarship" on this subject has reached its 
height in a peculiar way. For instance, Webster's Unabridged Dic- 
tionary, edition of 1864, speaks of must as "wine pressed from the 
grape, but not fermented," thus recognizing unfermented wine; but 
the edition of 1879 calls must "the expressed juice of the grape, be- 
fore fermentation," thus entirely omitting the word wine. But the 
fact that some men, within the space of fifteen years, concluded not' 
to allow the pure juice of the grape the name of wine, does not 
prove that that was never its name in the ages that are past. 

I propose now 1 to cite some of the proof of the existence of two 
kinds of wine, fermented and unfermented, as this has an impor- 
tant bearing on the subject before us. 

It is a remarkable fact that the vine and the wine have been 
designated by the same word in various languages, thus showing 
that the juice was wine when in the cluster, and wine the moment 
it was separated from it, and wine, later on, when fermentation took 
place. Historically, then, the first meaning of wine was unfermen- 



5 

ted, and the later or secondary meaning was fermented. There is 
ample oroof of the fact from which I draw this conclusion. Web- 
ster says our word vine corresponds with the Latin vinum, and 
he defines vinum to mean both wine and grapes, and refers to 
vinea, which means a vine. Andrew's Latin Dictionary defines 
viteus, "belonging to the vine,' 1 and adding pocula, cups, calls it 
u-ine. 

In other words, the vine-uwps are wine-cups. In Liddell and 
Scott's Greek Lexicon, oinos, wine, can be traced back to its origin 
in the word oina. This was the earliest word fQr jtfne, and it is 
said to be equivalent to oinos, wine. Later on, oinos came to mean 
also fermented wine, and arnpelos came to be the word for vine. 
Similar illustrations abound in other languages. The vine gave 
its own name to its own juice, just as Smith's child is a Smith 
at first, though it may afterward have something added to the name 
of Smith. The wine was first named from the vine, because the}' 
were both of the same nature, neither being fermented. Pindar, 
who flourished 490 B. C, recognizes this idea in the phrase, "drosos 
ampelou," defined by Liddell and Scott, "juice of the vine, wine." 
The root of the word wine, therefore, to use a bold figure, is the 
grape-root. 

Let us turn to special testimony. Dr. Whedon says, "There are 
tw^ sorts, or rather states, of wine; the one, the unfermented grape 
juice, which is simply exhilarating; the other, the fermented, 
which is intoxicating." — (Com. Jno 2:3.) 

Capt. Treatt, as quoted by Dr. Lees, says, "When on the South 
coast of Italy, last Christmas, (1845,) I inquired particularly about 
the wines in common use, aud found that those esteemed the best 
we're sweet and unintoxicatiny." This differs from the vitiated 
taste in this country, and illustrates "the good wine" that Christ 
made. 

Rees's Encyclopedia, a revision and enlargement ot Chambers' 
Encyclopedia, says, "Pressed wine is that which is squeezed with a 
press from the grapes; sweet wine is that which has not yet fer- 
mented." 

Dr. Sanders calls "must," "the wine or liquor in the vat." 

Sir Edward Barry says, "The modern Turks carry the unfer- 
mented wine along with them in their journeys." 

Webster's Dictionary, 1879, though changing the definition of 
must from wine to grape juice, speaks of stum as unfermented wine, 
and calls it "must." 

Worcester's Dictionary, 1860, speaks of "unfermented juice of 



the grape" as "now wine." 

Niittall's Dictionary, 1878, speaks of ''wine from the grape, not 
fermented." 

Longmuir's Dictionary. 1877, has, "new wine unfermentad." 

Collin's Dictionary, 1871, speaks ol "wine pressed from the 
grape, but not fermented." 

Ainsworth's Latin Dictionary speaks of "wine coming from the 
grape before pressing." 

Andrew's Latin Dictionary calls must "unfermented wine." 

Seoaue's Neuman and Baretti's Spanish and English Dictiona- 
ry, by Velazquez, 1854, calls must "new wine," and speaks of the 
juice spontaneously flowing from the grape as "virgin wine." 

Littre's Dictionary of the French language, 1863, speaks of 
"new wine, not fermented." 

Flugel's German and English Dictionary, 1853, has, "unfer- 
mented wine." 

Hilpert's German Dictionary, 1846, speaks of "wine pressed 
from the grape, but not fermented." 

Freund, 1845, refers to "unfermented wine." 

Donnegan's Lexicon, 1826, speaks of "unfermented wine." 

The Dictionary of the French academy uses the phrase, "sweet 
wine which has not yet fermented." 

Boag, in his Dictionary, calls must, "new wine, pressed from 
the grape, but not fermented." 

Parkinson, 1640, said, "The juice or liquor pressed out of the 
ripe grapes is called vinum wine''' 

Baron Tavernier, in his Persian travels, 1652, says of the 
Christians of St. John, "To make their wine they take grapes 
dried in the sun, and casting water upon them, let them steep for so 
long a time. The same wine they use in the consecration of the 
cup." 

Odoard Barbosa says the Christians of St. Thomas celebrated 
the Lord's Supper in the juice expressed from raisous "softened 
one night in water." These Christians were found on the coast of 
Malabar, and claimed to have derived the gospel from St. Thomas, 
the apostle. 

Osorius, 1586, says of them, "they use in their sacrifices wine 
prepared from dried grapes." 

The Bishop of Norwich, 1660, said, "What doth he in the ordi- 
nary way of nature, but turn the watery juice that arises up from 
the root into wine?" 

The Bishop of Rochester, 1702, speaks of "unfermented wine/' 



i 

E. Chambers, 1750, says, "sweet wine is that which has not vet 
fermented." 

Harmer speaks of il wine just pressed out from the grapes." 

Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the logicians of the thirteenth 
century, in his 4th book, 74th question, 5th article, where he is 
asked in reference to the Lord's Supper, "whether wine of the vine 
is a proper substance to be used in this sacrament," answers. "Grape 
juice has the specific nature of wine — therefore, this sacrament can 
be kept with grape juice." 

The Targum of the Canticles, supposed to have been written 
about A. D. 400, has these words on Canticles 1: 14: Closes com- 
manded the sons of Aaron, who were priests, that they should offer 
oblations upon the altar, and that they should pour out wine upon 
the oblations. Whence, however, could they procure the wine thus 
to pour out? How could they get it in that desert place, which was 
not fit to be sowed, and where no fig trees, or vines, or pomegranate 
trees grew? But the}^ went to the vineyard of Engedi, and they 
brought thence clusters of grapes,and they expressed from them icine 
and they poured out from it upon the altar, the fourth part of a hin 
upon each ram." This is not the lauguage of "temperance fanat- 
ics," but of a Jew nearly fifteen hundred years ago, and it shows 
that the freshly expressed juice of the grape was then called- </.7/*e, 
and that it was recognized in the Levitical rites. 

Augustine, born A. D. 354, speaking of Christ's making wine 
at Caua, says, "He made wine at the nuptials, who every year makes 
it on the vines." 

Christ refers to ancient customs when he says. "And no man 
putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the 
bottles, and be spilt, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine 
must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved." (Luke 5: 37, 
38.) It has been a common opinion that wine was put into the 
bottles to terment, and that old bottles, not stretching enough to 
allow fermentation, would burst. But no new skin-bags that were 
ever known would stretch enough to allow fermentation, since the 
gas from the fermenting liquor forces itself into about forty times 
the original space occupied by the liquor. Think of a skin -bottle 
of the size of a barrel stretching to the size of forty ban els! 
Chambers' Cyclopedia says, "A fermenting wine will burst the 
strongest casks, if tightly closed." Now, if the wine was put into 
bottles to ferment, the bottles would have been left open so as not 
to burst. Evidently they were tightly closed. Old bottles would 
have sour dregs sticking to them, or have cracks that would let in 



8 
air, and would cause new \vi::e to ferment. New wine, if put into 
new bottles before fermentation could commence, and made 
air-tight, won Id be preserved in an an fermented state, especially if 
the bottles were buried in the earth, as was the custom. New wine, 
then, was put into new bottles to keep it from fermenting "Old 
wine," preserved thus, or in any other of the usual ways, was re- 
garded as the best. "No man also having drunk old winestraight- 
way desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." 

Pliny speaks of Opimian wine two hundred years old, which 
had the consistence of honey. (Natural History XIV. 6.) 

Aristotle says that "sweet wine will not intoxicate." (Mete- 
orology Lib. IV cap. 9.) . . , 

Pliny, refering to a certain Spanish wine, calls it "a, wine which 
would not intoxicate." (Lib. XIV, cap, 2.) Pliny was born 
A . D. 23. 

Varro, born 1 16 B. C, and called "the most learned among 
the" Romans," speaks of a wine of which he says, "it was sweet 
but not intoxicating." 

The Rey. Henry Homes. American Missionary at Constanti- 
nople,- says, in the Bibliotheoa Sacra, May, 1848: "As there has 
been -great search for an unfermented wine — a wine that would not 
intoxicate—^as soon as I came upon the trace, two y°ars since, of 
sucli an 'article as Nardent, 1 most perseveiingly followed it up, 
till I should find on: what it was. For although, in the present 
use of language, an unfermented wine is an impossibility, yet here 
is a cooling grape-liquor not intoxicating; and which, in the man- 
ner of making and preserving it, seems to correspond with the re- 
cipes and descriptions of certain drinks included by some of the 
ancients under the appellation of wine." 

This further illustrates the secret of the matter. In the present 
language in the East, the word for wine is so changed, either in 
its reconstruction or in its application, as always to mean fermen- 
ted, and of course there cannot be a,niin fermented fermented liquor. 
But the substances anciently called wine— unintoxi eating wine — 
are still in the East. 

This illustrates the celebrated "Syrian Certificate." Dr. Lau- 
rie, in the Bibliotheca Sacra of January, 1869, attempts to upset all 
the historical facts in conflict with his theory by the statement of 
Rev. W. M. Thomson and others, that they never heard of "an un- 
fermented wine" in Syria or the Holy Lands. The same is said 
now of ( the United States and England, and there are men who 
laugh at what they call "the two-wine theory;" and yet manufac- 



9 

turers of Ripley, Ohio, have been preparing every year about 5,000 
gallons of unfermented wine, which is only one if^stance of many; 
and Mr. Frank Wright, of Loudon, prepares an unfermented wine 
which "has stood the test of sixteen year's public sale in every 
quarter of the globe," and is used for sacramental purposes in about 
a thousand churches of every denomination — a declaration made 
about ten years ago, and true to day to a still greater extent. The 
certificate from Syria, founded, as it is, upon the peculiar logic of 
one-wine men, has no more weight than the declaration that there 
is no such thing as unfermenced wine in England or America. 
Besides, Miss Mariah A. West, Missionary of the American Board 
in Turkey, who is a disinterested witness, having no special theory 
to sustain, says, in her recent book, "Romance of Missions," "In 
the Syrian church, the oldest in the world, it seems that fermented 
wine is not used for the communion. When the fresh juice of the 
grape cannot be obtained, raisons are soaked and the juice express- 
ed for the purpose." But, if there is no such thing in Syria now as 
ULfermented wine, that does not prove that there never was such a 
thing there. There are no Indians living about the rivers of Penn- 
sylvania now, but surely they were there at one time. 

It is often asked, "How can wine be preserved in an unfermen- 
ted state?" The ancients had many modes of preserving it, among 
which was that of boiling. It boils at 212 degrees. Alcohol evapo- 
rates at 170 degrees, being 42 degrees below the boiling point — so 
the boiling not ODly prevents fermentation, but, in case a small 
portion of alcohol should be already formed, it totally dissipates it. 

In the testimonies concerning the existence of unintoxicating 
wine, it is sometimes expressed and at other times implied that such 
wine was iu use, but a special testimony or two on this point may 
be added. 

Michaelis, who wrote commentaries on the laws of Moses in 
1776-1780, quotes the fact that the Mohammedans of Arabia press 
the juice of the grapes through a linen cloth, pour it into a cup and 
drink it as Pharaoh did; and Capt. Charles Stewart says that "the 
unfermented juice of the grape and palm tree are a delightful bev- 
erage in India, Persia, Palestine and other adjacent countries." 

Achilles Tatius, a Christian bishop of the third century, born, 
at Alexandria in Egypt, describes a scene between Bacchus and a 
Tynan Shepherd, (lib, XI, cap. II, ) which illustrates, by an allu- 
sion, the practice of using unfermented wine. 

Bacchus, having been hospitably entertained by this shepherd 
with food and water, presented him in return with a cup filled with 



10 

fres.i grape-juice. On tasting this, the Shepherd exclaimed 
"Whence, my guest, have you this purple water, or where in the 
world have you so sweet a Olood? It surely is not from that which 
flows through the land. Water affects the breast with but little 
pleasure; this, however, applied to the mouth, gratifies the nostrils, 
and though it be cold to the touch, yet when it is imbibed, it raises 
throughout an agreeable warmth." Bacchus replied: "This au- 
tumnal water and Mood flows out of branches;" and, having led the 
shepherd to a vine, he said of the grape juice, "this is the water," 
and, pointing to the pendent clusters, he added, "but these are the 
fountains." 

This reference to Bacchus illustrates customs, and recognizes 
the pure juice of the grape as a common beverage. 

The commendation of the pure blood of the grape ascribed to 
the Tyrian shepherd recognizes the fact that such wine was con- 
sidered the best. It was probably similar to "the good wine" at 
Cana. 

The custom in question is as old, at least, as the da}^s of Jo- 
seph. We read in Genesis 40: 11, "And Pharaoh's cup was iu my 
hand; and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup 
and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand." This was the butler's 
dream as told by himself. The dream was divinely ordered, and 
showed the butler that he should give the cup to Pharaoh as before. 
"Yet within three days," said Joseph to the butler, in giving the 
interpretation of the dream, "shall Pharaoh lift up thine head, and 
restore thee unto thy place: and thon shalt deliver Pharaoh's cup 
into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast his butler." 
The historian adds, that Pharaoh "restored the chief butler unto 
his butlership again ; and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's haud." 
Thus what God pointed out in the dream was literally fulfilled. In 
this we have the authority of the scriptures for the custom of drink- 
ing unintoxicating wine, dating back nearly four thousand years 
in the worlds history. Dr. Adam Clarke, one of the most learned 
men in England in his day, saj'S, in commenting on Genesis 40: 11. 
From this we find that wine anciently was the mere expressed juice 
of the grape, without fermentation. The Saky, or cup-bearer, took 
the bunch, pressed the juice into the cup, and instantly delivered 
it into the hands of his master. This was anciently the Yagt'n 
[wine] of the Hebrews, the Oinos [wine] ot the Greeks, and the 
Mustum [new fresh wine] of the ancient Latins " 

Dr. Cunningham Geike is mentioned (Kansas Methodist, July 
14th, 1881,) as authority for the statement that modern research 



11 

demonstrates that Egypt had two kinds of wine, and that the 
demonstration is "a text discovered by Ebers in tr* inscriptions of 
the temple of Ed fu, in which the king is seen standing cup in 
hand, while underneath are the words, "They press grapes into 
the water and the king drinks." This monumental inscription is 
an unanswerable corroboration of the fact, as recorded in the 
fortieth chapter of Genesis, that the butler pressed grapes into a 
cup, and that Pharaoh took the cup and drank the pure blood of 
the grape. 

Though the Old Testament uses many words to express what 
we call wine, yet with our one word wine we can thoroughh T trace the 
two classes of opposite wines in Scripture. 

The Bible speaks of wine in the cluster. -'Thus saith the 
Lord, as the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Des- 
troy it not; for a blessing is in it; so will I do," etc. — (Is 65:18.) 
There is a blessing in such wine, but another kind is called "a 
mocker." The two cannot be the same. 

The Bible speaks of wine in the press. "So shall thy barns be 
filled with plenty, and tlry presses shall burst out with new wine." 
— (Prov. 3:10.) "Aud I have caused wine to fail from the wine- 
presses." — (Jer. 48:33.) That which was in the press and came 
out of it was called wine. "The treaders," sa3 T s Isaiah, "shall trend 
out no wine in their presses." — (16:10.) 

Here is wine that is not "a mocker." As well might we 
call bread "a mocker." "But it is all wine," says one. So it is, and 
yet one is "a mocker," and the other has "a blessing" in it. 

There is a vast difference in the Bible between wine and wine, 
as there is a difference there between temptiny and tempting ; for 
the Bible says, (Gen. 22:1,) "God did tempt Abraham," aud again, 
(Jas. 1:13,) "Neither tempteth he any man." The tempting is not 
the same in both cases, for in one, it is a trial of principle to 
strengthen the good, and in the other, a trial of the heart to seduce 
to evil. In the Bible there is a difference between evil and evil] as, 
(Amos 3:6,) "Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not 
done it?" And, (Hab. 1:13,) "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold 
evil" "That must mean," says one, "that the Lord avoids the 
abuse of evil, and not its proper use, for I hold that it is the abuse 
of wine, and not its moderate use, which the Bible condemns." 
Far from it: there is a difference between wine and wine, and be- 
tween evil and evil. In one case, evil denotes the judgment which 
God inflicts on his enemies; in the other, the wrong which sinners 
commit. 



12 

Evil is right when it means God's judgment, and wine is good 
when it is not intoxicating; but evil is wrong when it means sin, 
and wine is bad when it has to be called "a mocker," and the Bible 
condemns both of these — not the abuse, but the. use. The prohibi- 
tion in Prov. 23:31,32, is direct, specific and full: "Look not thou 
upon the wine when it is red, when it give:h his color in the cup, 
when it moveth itself aright. At the last, it biteth like a serpent, 
and stingeth like an adder." If this does not point to fermenta- 
tion, how is language to show anything? Liebig gives as the signs 
of fermentation in grape-juice that it becomes "colored and turbid.' 1 
Mark the language — "colored and turbid" — and compare it with 
the language of Scripture — "giveth his color in the cup," 
"moveth itself aright." These are always the signs of fermenta- 
tion. When these signs appear — when the wine ferments — the 
prohibition is so strong that we are not even to "look" upon the 
wine — the very desire for it must be suppressed. 

Let it be noted here that it is the use of intoxicating wine that 
the Bible condemns, and not its abuse. Who has ever proved the 
"abuse" theory? It has been asserted, but never proved. It is 
wine that is called u a mocker," and not "the abuse of wine." It is 
the wine in the cup that gives its color and moves itself — it is not 
the abuse ol the wine that does this. It is the fermented wine, not 
its abuse, which we are forbidden to look upon. We are forbidden 
to look upon wine, not ivhen it is abused, but when it gives its color 
and moves itself. 

But if Christ, as some claim, made intoxicating wine at Cana, 
then we have his authority for the use of such wine as a beverage. 
If Christ made intoxicating wine to be used in drinking at a feast, 
then every wine-drinker has the sanction of Christ for his drinking, 
provided he avoids drunkenness. "But," it may be said, "Christ's 
morality in this was suited to his times, but was not meant to be 
permanent." How was it suited to his times when heathen morality 
condemned intoxicating wine? About eleven hundred years before 
Christ, a Chinese emperor, at an assembly of the states, forbade 
the use of wine, as what proves the cause of almost all the evils 
which happen on the earth. (Modern Universal History, Vol. VIII, 
P. 396.) Psammetichus, more than two thousand years after Noah 
had planted the vine, was the first of the Egyptian Kings who 
drank wine. (Anqutii.) Plutarch says there was a law in the wes- 
tern part of Locris punishing with death everyone who drank wine, 
unless he did it by direction of a physician. Had the ancient 
Chinese, Egyptians and Greeks better morality than Christ? As to 



13 
Christ's authority not being permanent, we have no such intim- 
ation in the Bible. We accept it, as Christians, tor all time. We 
do not say, "as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm 
that we say," Let Christ and the Bible show our view of wine, or 
we will have nothing to do with them. But what do infidels say 
about those ministers of the gospel who hold that Christ made in- 
toxicating wine ? " Infidels deny to me," says Dr. Norman Kerr, 
"the inspiration of the Bible, the infallibility of its Author, and the 
divinity of Christ, on the ground that the Bible approves, and he 
made, what all men of science know to be poison. These unbe- 
lievers exultingly quote to me the dogmatic assertion of a host of 
divines, that Christ made, and the Bible commends, intoxicating 
wine. (Wines : Scrip & Eccles-p.10.) 

Let us examine what Christ did at Cana. Fermentation is a 
chemical process. Did Christ perform the part of chemist or Cre- 
ator when he turned water into wine ? When he "manifested forth 
his glory," was it the glory of a chemist, or that of a Creator ? 

But let us approach Cana by way of two important facts. The first 
is, that alcohol does not belong to either creation or growth. There 
is no taint of alcohol in the wine which "is found in the cluster," 
aud this is God's wine. It has been proved impossible to "extract 
any appreciable quantity of alcohol from grapes, ripe or rotten, pro- 
vided the fruit has not been in any way meddled with by art." "The 
intervention of man is always necessary to the placing of fruit in a 
condition to permit the vinous fermentation." 

The second fact pertains to Christ's miracles. I have examined 
every one of them to see what special principle was underlying them 
illustrative of Bible wines. I found, without an exception, that, 
when Christ performed miracles with man's work, he carried for- 
ward that work, and never introduced into it some element of God's 
work ; buc that, when he performed miracles with God's work, he 
carried forward or intensified that work, and never introduced into 
it some element of man's work. Thus, in his miracle with loaves 
and fishes, he multiplied the cooked materials. But, in the miracu- 
lous draft of fishes, he produced the living fishes. So, in begin ling 
with water, which God created, he intensified the material as God 
does in the growth of the vine, and produced such wine as "is found 
in the cluster" — God's wine. God turns water into wine every year 
in the growth of the vine and the grape it bears, and Christ did the 
same thing at Cana in an instant, and thus "manifested forth his 
glory" as Creator. 

The principle underlying Christ's miracles, as just set forth, 



14 

characterizes every miracle in the Bible. In every instance of a 
miracle, man's work is earned forward in its own order, and that 
of God is intensified within its own domain, without mingling with 
it any work of man. 

It has been argued that intoxicating wine was used at the Lord's 
Supper in the earliest times, and the argument has been largely 
founded on 1 Cor. 11 : 21, where Paul saj's, "For in eating every 
one taketh before other his own supper : and one is hungry, and 
another is drunken." The word here translated drunken, is defin- 
ed in Ewing's Lexicon, Glasgow, "Plentifully fed ;" by Dr.Hammond, 
"To feed to the full ;" and Dr. Macknight renders the sentence, 
"One verily is hungry, and auother filled" Dr. Wheeden sa} T s, 
"The antithesis to hungry would suggest that the opposite word 
would mean surfeited.' 1 '' Dr. Clark renders the word in question, 
u was filled to the fall,'" and adds, "this is the sense of the word in 
many places of Scripture." There is much good authority to the 
same effect. 

But let us look at the passage as it stands in our version of 
the Bible. Paul makes a contrast. What contrasts with drunken 
except sober ? and then the passage would read, "One is sober and 
another is drunken" To make the contrast, it should be, "One is 
hungry, and another is filled." This further appears from the fact 
that the Corinthians came together so as "not to eat the Lord's 
Supper," as Paul puts it, but they made an ordinary meal. In this 
way, the poor, not having much to take, were hungry, while the rich 
were filled. The apostle condemns such a feast, and asks, "What ? 
have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ?" He requests them to 
do at home what they did in the way of their "own supper," when 
they assembled to take the Lord's Supper. (I Cor. 11:20-22.) 11 
the word translated drunken is to be taken in its worst sense, Paul 
may be paraphrased thus : "One is hungry, and another is drunk- 
en. What ? have ye not houses to eat and to get drunk in ? Do 
not get drunk where you take the Lord's Supper ; go home, dear 
brethren, and get drunk there !" 

But we are told that "Christ could not have used the unfermen- 
ted juice of the grape at the Eucharist, because it was six or eight 
months after the vintage." It is a sufficient answer to this to say, 
that what is spoken of as impossible for Christ is actually done 
now in every month of the year. "Then," it is replied, "you ought 
to have been among the Corinthians, in order to teach Paul how 
to provide wine for the Lord's Supper." Rather, let us suppose 
Paul represented by this objector in a modern conversation. This 



15 

man, assuming to represent the apostle, goes forth to inquire for 
wiue. "I wish to buy some w:ne for the communion." ''Well, here 
is some of the best." "Of coarse, then, it would make a body 
drunk." "By no means." "No, do you say? "Where, then, did \i 
come from ?"' "It came from a temperance man, who preserves the 
pure bloocl of the grape on purpose for the communion." "Ah ! I 
thought so — I can't take that." "Well, here is some that several 
sinners got drunk on, and I suppose it will retain its nature with 
the Lord's heritage." "That's it — that's none of } T our temperance 
grape-juice that wouldn't make a body drunk if he drank a quart 
of it — that's Paul's kind of wine — I'll take some of that for the 
Lord's Supper, if you please." 

Communion wine should be un fermented. Christ, with the 
bread and cup of the Passover, instituted the Lord's Supper. The 
law of the Passover was, "Seven days shall there be no leaven found 
in 3 r our houses." (Ex. I2;19.) "But," says one, "when wine is 
done fermenting, all the ferment is gone out of it, and therefore it 
did not violate this law, and could be used at the Passover.'' This 
argument proves too much, for it can be applied to the bread. 
Baking kills ferment, and yet leavened bread, with the ferment 
gone from it, was forbidden at the Passover. 

Why was leaven or ferment — for they are 
exactly the same thing — forbidden ' at the Pass- 
over ? Whatever the reason was, it applied equally to the 
same thing whether found in bread or wine. The Scripture's give 
the reason. They show that ferment was to be banished from the 
Passover because it was a symbol of corruption, and all fermented 
things carried the symbol. Christ bade his disciples beware of the 
ferment of the Pharisees, using ferment as a symbol of corruption. 
(Matt. 16:6,11,12.) Paul shows plainly, in 1 Cor. 5:6-8, that fer- 
ment was excluded from the Passover because it was a symbol of 
corruption : "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a . 
new lump, as } r e are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is 
sacrificed for us : therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, 
neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness ; but with the un- 
leavened bread of sincerity and truth." 

As the reason for purging out ferment was, that it was a sym- 
bol of "malice and wickedness" and other corruption, so it applied 
to all the things which either contained or were produced by fer- 
ment. It will be noticed that the word bread is in italics, showing 
that Paul did not use it in Greek. He used an adjective signifying 
unleavened or unfermented, and that adjective is in the plural. 



16 
The Wt fermented things is the meaning. 

The Greek adjective for unleavened or un- 
fer merited is used eight times in the New Testa- 
ment with reference to the Passover. (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:1,12; 
Luke 22:1,7; Acts 12:3, and 20:6, audi Cor. 5:8.) Though our trans- 
lators have italicized bread only in the one instance alread}^ named, 
yet that word does not once occur in the original. In the entire 
eight instances it is the plural adjective without a noun. The ad- 
jective is neuter and plural, and thus, according to a well known 
rule in Greek, is used as a noun for the concrete idea, i. e., inclu- 
ding the particulars ; thus : Ta azuma, what is unfermented, things 
unfermented. The new Testament, then, speaks of the Passover 
as a feist of unfermented things. 

Christ used these things, which were bread and wine, in 
instituting the Lord's Supper, and consequently he did it with 
unleavened bread and unfermented wine. 

The bread in the Eucharist is the symbol of Christ's body — 
not the decayed body, but the broken body. The wine is the sym- 
bol of Christ's blood — not the fermented blood, but the shed blood. 
As the grape is crushed and the wine flows, so Christ's body was 
broken and the blood flowed ; and the wine which is a symbol of 
that blood is the pure blood of the grape. Fermented wine cannot 
be a true symbol of "the shedding of blood." 

There is one point which has been 

much overlooked. If we take every reference in 
the New Testament to the blood-symbol in the Lord's Supper, 
(Matt. 26:27,29 ; Mark 14:23,25 ; Luke 22:17,18,20 ; 1 Cor. 10:16; 
11:25,28,) we shall find the expressions to be these: "the cup," 
five times ; "the fruit of the vine," three times ; "this cup," twice; 
"that cup," once ; "the cup of blessing," once ; "this cup of the 
Lord," once. The point not always noticed is, that the word wine 
never occurs. The expressions are fully comprised in these two : 
"the cup," and "the fruit of the vine." "The cup" is the contain- 
er, and, according to a well known figure of speed), stands for the 
thing contained. The thing contained is simply and solely "the 
fruit of the vine," and the word wine is not once used. 

What is 'the fruit of the vine ?' Is it what comes from the vine, 
or something else? How much of alcoholic wine is what it was before 
fermentation? We haye an important witness on this point. The 
wine-importing firm of Gibbey says, in its annual circular of Octo- 
ber, 1867, that the fermentation of grape-juice "throws off much of 
the body and richness of the fruit, so much so, indeed, that it must 



17 

be admitted the similarity of the juice of the grape before and after 
fermentation is scarcely discernible?'' Let this concession be noted. 
Every word of it is true All know that the blood of the grape is 
"the fruit of the viue," but only a few will contend that something, 
whose "similarity" to it is "scarcely discernible," is also "the fruit of 
the vine." "Wines," says Dr. Shaw, "having once finished their 
fermentation as wines, do not naturally stop there ; but, unless pre- 
vented by the care of the operator, proceed directly on to vinegar ; 
where again they make no stop, but, unless prevented here also, 
spontaniously go on to vapidity, ropiness, moldiness, and putre- 
faction." [Chemical Lectures, London, 1731, pp. 126,127.] — Alco- 
holic wine, then, is no more "the frnit of the vine" than any of the 
other products of its decay. Hence, vinegar, Or yeast, is as suitable 
for the Lord's Supper as alcoholic wine, for the Scriptures speak 
only of "the fruit of the vine," and alcoholic wine no more meets 
that demand than the yeast which precedes it, or the vinegar which 
follows it. 

It is believed that these arguments in favor of the pure 
blood of the grape for the Eucharist have never been answered and 
probably never will be. Besides, there are reasons upon the very 
surface of tne Scriptures in support of total abstinence from intox- 
icating wine as a beverage, which must come with irresistible force 
to every thinking mind. 

1. God required total abstinence when he was about to raise 
up the strongest man that ever lived. Neither Samson nor his 
mother was to drink wine or strong drink, and even the temp- 
tation to drink was removed in the prohibition of whatever came 
from the vine. This shows that God considered total abstinence 
from intoxicants as belonging to the highest physical law. (Judg- 
es 13:4,24.) 

2. Daniel and his associates met with the approval of God in 
asking for a total abstinence test in the court of Babylon, and, at 
the end of the experiment, "in all matters of wisdom and under- 
standing" the}^ were "ten times better than all" the wine drinkers 
in the country. We have it on divine authority, therefore, that to- 
tal abstinence from intoxicants is a matter of the highest intellec- 
tual law. (Dan. 1:3,17.) 

3. Samuel, who was given to his mother in answer to prayer, 
was devoted to God as one who would drink no wine all the days 
of his life. He was for many years an exemplary judge. His 
course, and that of Daniel and his associates in the Babylonian 
court, show that total abstinence from intoxicants has its seat in 



18 
the highest political law. 

4 God has shown that total abstinence from intoxicants in- 
heres in the highest of all law, and promotes religions strength. It 
seems that Nadab and Abihu were slain at the altar for indulgence 
in wine, and that, as growing out of this, the command was given 
to Aaron, "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons 
with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest 
ye die : it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations." 
(Lev. 10:8-11.) This is the Lord's rule for his own house, and if 
we are to be ''perfect" as He is "perfect," we should have the same 
rule for every house. John the Baptist was "great in the sight of 
the Lord," and he drank "neither wine nor strong drink," and he 
was "filled with the Holy Ghost." His abstinence is mentioned as 
if indispensable to his being "filled with the Holy Ghost." His 
work was to go before Christ and prepare his way. (Luke 1:15-17.) 
If Christ's /orerunner had to be a total abstainer from intoxicants, 
why should not every afterrumier be the same ? 

5. For all people en masse, God has shown what his law is 
when he deals out food and drink directly with his own hand. It 
is one thing for him to put men in the midst of all kinds of food, 
and quite another for him to put food ^o their mouths. When he 
places them where food is, he says, "I have endowed you with reas- 
on and will ; judge ye, and choose, and take the responsibility." 
When he puts food to their mouths with his own hand, he says, 
"This is my choice, and you have no responsibilit} T ; the deed is 
wholly mine, and agrees with the highest law." This is what ha 
did for the Israelites in the wilderness. With his own hand he pro- 
vided them food and drink for forty years, but he furnished noth- 
ing that would intoxicate. He could have done it as easily as to 
provide water, but he chose not to do so. With equal power to give 
the people what would intoxicate, or the opposite kind of drink, 
he excluded the former. The Israelites were total abstainers from 
intoxicating drink for forty years, and that by divine appointment. 

6. The Scriptures, as a consistent whole, must be regarded as 
teaching total abstinence from intoxicants as a beverage. About 
twenty passages in the Bible speak of wine with approval, while one 
hundred and thirty warn men against its use. The fact that there 
are more than six times as many warnings as approvals, should 
stop the mouths of the advocates of wine, even if the same kind of 
wine is referred to in the Bible. But what shall be said after dis- 
covering that the twenty approvals have reference to unintoxica- 
ting wine, and the one hundred and thirty warnings to intoxicating 



19 

wine ? The two modes of representing wine show at least two kinds 
of wine. The Scriptures speak of wine as a blessing, and rank it 
with corn and oil, and in doing this they can not refer to wine con- 
taining alcohol. But they also denounce it, and connect it with 
drunkenness and revelry, and in doing this they can mean only such 
wine as was alcoholic or intoxicating. If there is harmony in the 
Scriptures — if God's voice is there* — then the position which I have 
just announced must be true. 

We have now gone over the proof: of several things, which are 
good, and which we ought to hold fast, and among them are 
these : 1. Wine has been the name of the pure blood of the grape 
in all ages, and it was probably first used to designate the uufer- 
mented juice. 2. Un fermented wine, from the earliest times, was 
used as a beverage. 3. Such wine was regarded as specially good 
wine. 4. The wines of the Bible were unintoxicating, and alcoholic 
— the former were approved and the latter were denounced. 5. 
The pure blood of the grape, which is "the fruit of the vine," is 
the Scriptural symbol of the blood of Jesus. 6. The written word 
of God is "the only rule, and the sufficient rule," not only of "our 
faith," but also of our "practice ;" and if total abstinence from in- 
toxicants as a beverage is not taught there, then we can not find 
it anywhere. Let the evils of intemperance warn us of danger ; 
let modern discoveries teach us lessons of wisdom ; bu : let us not 
forget that God has spoken in the Bible. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

027 293 751 5 



